AGE  AND  EMINENCE 


By  Professor  EDWIN  G.  DEXTER, 

UNIVERSITY  OP  ILLINOIS 


fEeprinted  from  The  Popular  Science  Monthly 


April,  1905J 


. cC-iaA 


< 


/ 

[Reprinted  from  The  Popular  Science  Monthly,  April,  1905.] 


AGE  AND  EMINENCE. 

By  Professor  EDWIN  G.  DEXTER, 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS. 

SELDOM  has  the  popular  mind  been  so  deeply  moved  by  the  casual 
utterance  of  a savant  as  in  the  recent  instance  of  Dr.  Osler^s  now 
famous  valedictory  at  Johns  Hopkins.  Nothing  was  probably  more 
foreign  to  the  speaker’s  mind  than  an  intention  to  stir  up  the  tumult 
of  newspaper  contention  that  followed  his  remarks,  and  we  may  pre- 
sume that  he  is  not  altogether  pleased  at  the  exact  character  of  the 
notoriety  which  he  has  achieved.  The  portion  of  his  address  that  has 
brought  him  so  prominently  into  the  public  eye  had  to  do  with  the  age 
of  greatest  usefulness  in  man,  and  runs  as  follows: 

I have  two  fixed  ideas,  well  known  to  my  friends,  harmless  obsessions, 
with  which  I sometimes  bore  them,  but  which  have  a direct  bearing  on  this 
important  problem.  The  first  is  the  comparative  uselessness  of  men  above 
forty  years  of  age.  This  may  seem  shocking,  and  yet,  read  aright,  the  world’s 
history  bears  out  the  statement.  Take  the  sum  of  human  achievement  in 
action,  in  science,  in  art,  in  literature — subtract  the  work  of  the  men  above 
forty,  and  while  we  should  miss  great  treasures,  even  priceless  treasures,  we 
should  practically  be  where  we  are  to-day.  It  is  difficult  to  name  a great  and 
far-reaching  conquest  of  the  mind  which  has  not  been  given  to  the  world  by  a 
man  on  whose  back  the  sun  was  still  shining.  The  effective,  moving,  vitalizing 
work  of  the  world  is  done  between  the  ages  of  twenty-five  and  forty — ^these 
fifteen  years  of  plenty,  the  anabolic  or  constructive  period,  in  which  there  is 
always  a balance  in  the  mental  bank,  and  the  credit  is  still  good.  . . . 

My  second  fixed  idea  is  the  uselessness  of  men  above  sixty  years  old,  and 
the  incalculable  benefit  it  would  be  in  commercial,  political  and  in  professional 
life  if,  as  a matter  of  course,  men  stopped  work  at  this  age.  Donne  tells  us  in 
his  ‘ Biathanatos  ’ that,  by  the  laws  of  certain  wise  states,  sexagenari  were  pre- 
cipitated from  a bridge,  and  in  Rome  men  of  that  age  were  not  admitted  to  the 
suffrage,  and  they  were  called  deponati,  because  the  way  to  the  senate  was  per 
pontem,  and  they,  from  age,  were  not  permitted  to  come  hither.  In  that 
charming  novel,  ‘ The  Fixed  Period,’  Anthony  Trollope  discusses  the  practical 
advantage  in  modern  life  of  a return  to  this  ancient  usage,  and  the  plot  hinges 
upon  the  admirable  scheme  of  a college,  into  which,  at  sixty,  men  retired  for 
a year  of  contemplation  before  a peaceful  departure  by  chloroform.  That  incal- 
culable benefits  might  follow  such  a scheme  is  apparent  to  any  one  who,  like 
myself,  is  nearing  the  limit,  and  who  has  made  a careful  study  of  the  calamities 
which  may  befall  men  during  the  seventh  and  eighth  decades. 

The  thoughts  expressed  in  these  paragrpahs  were  much  more  fully 
elaborated  by  Dr.  Osier  in  the  delivery  of  his  address,  and  we  may 

(p 


539 


POPULAR  SCIENCE  MONTHLY. 


\ 

accept  them  as  the  basis  of  the  controversy.  It  is  plain  that  in  the 
discussion  of  the  second  of  the  ^ fixed  ideas  ’ the  allusion  to  Trollope 
and  the  use  of  chloroform  for  the  sexagenari  was  a bit  of  pleasantry 
and  not  intended  by  the  speaker  to  be  taken  seriously.  It  has,  however, 
proved  too  subtle  for  many  a yellow  sheet. 

Yet  it  is  just  as  plain  that  Dr.  Osier  in  all  seriousness  believes  that 
man’s  constructive  period  reaches  its  climax  and  begins  to  decline  by 
the  age  of  forty  years  and  also  that  the  world  would  be  the  gainer  if 
all  active  participants  in  its  affairs  were  at  the  age  of  sixty  replaced 
by  younger  men.  He  does  not,  I take  it,  contend  that  men  above  that 
age  are  absolutely  useless,  but  only  relatively  so.  That  is,  for  every 
man  in  service  above  the  age  of  sixty,  a better  man  could  be  found  to 
take  his  place  below  that  age.  In  considering  this  proposition  it  is 
inevitable  that  men,  such  as  Gladstone,  Bismarck,  Moltke,  Hoar,  Eocke- 
feller,  Morgan  and  scores  of  others  beyond  the  age  limit,  leaders  in 
various  activities,  come  to  mind  as  refutations  of  his  theories.  Yet  we 
must  not  forget  that,  according  to  the  census,  6.4  per  cent,  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  United  States,  or  4,871,861  persons,  are  beyond 
the  age  of  sixty  years,  and  that  instances  of  aged  leadership  are  com- 
paratively rare — perhaps  sufficiently  so  as  to  give  some  support  to  Dr. 
Osier’s  contention. 

But  it  is  the  former  of  Dr.  Osier’s  ^ fixed  ideas  ’ that  I wish  primarily 
to  discuss,  the  one  expressed  in  the  words  that  ^ the  effective,  moving, 
vitalizing  work  of  the  world  has  been  done  between  the  ages  of  twenty- 
five  and  forty.  We  can  not  doubt  that  large  numbers  of  thinking 
people  are  roughly  of  his  opinion.  Many  corporations  refuse  to  add 
to  their  working  forces  persons  beyond  the  age  of  forty  years,  and  a 
question  recently  taken  up  for  serious  discussion  before  a national  body 
of  educators  was  whether  teachers  did  not  as  a class  depreciate  in 
effectiveness  after  the  age  of  thirty-five. 

It  is  not,  however,  through  the  expression  of  personal  opinion  that 
I can  hope  to  add  anything  to  the  question,  but  through  recourse  to  a 
considerable  mass  of  data  that  I happen  to  have  in  my  possession 
showing  the  age  at  which  some  thousands  of  Americans  have  received 
public  recognition  for  services  rendered.  I refer  to  those  mentioned  in 
^ Who’s  Who  in  America.’  Some  years  ago  in  connection  with  a study 
the  purpose  of  which  was  to  determine  the  educational  preparation  of 
those  who  had  achieved  the  kind  of  eminence  which  mention  in  that 
book  indicates,  I made  a tabulation  of  the  ages  of  the  nearly  9,000 
persons  mentioned  in  the  edition  of  1900.  The  names  fell  quite  natur- 
ally, so  far  as  vocation  is  concerned,  into  J^wrrtwenty-five  groups,  the 
greater  number  of  which— for  men  only — are  given  in  the  following 


AGE  AND  EMINENCE. 


540 


table,  together  with  the  number  in  each  group,  the  median  age  of  the 
group  and  the  percentage  of  persons  under  the  age  of  forty  years.* 


No.  in 
Group. 

Median  Age 

Percentage 

Profession. 

of  Group 
in  Years. 

Below  Forty. 
Years  of  Age 

Actor  

54 

48 

20.3 

Artist 

260 

44 

14.5 

Author 

528 

54 

19.4 

200 

63 

2.5 

Clergyman 

655 

59 

5.5 

College  professor  

1,090 

47 

22.0 

Congressman 

446 

53 

14.6 

Editor 

509 

47 

20.0 

Educator  

188 

54 

21.8 

Engineer 

284 

55 

9.8 

Financier 

215 

64 

5.5 

Inventor  

26 

62 

0 

Lawyer  

857 

57 

5.6 

Librarian  

362 

50 

22.6 

Physician  

540 

56 

11 

Musician  

Ill 

44 

33.3 

Sailor  

103 

59 

5.0 

Scientist 

146 

44 

31.3 

Soldier  

205 

63 

6.8 

Statesman  

202 

55 

8.0 

6,983 

Av.  54 

Av.  16 

Although  this  table  has  a bearing  upon  the  minimum  age  at  which 
a certain  sort  of  public  recognition  is  given  to  achievement,  in  its  con- 
sideration two  things  must  be  borne  in  mind ; first,  that  many  of  those 
who  were  at  the  issue  of  the  book  over  forty  years  of  age  performed  the 
service  which  gave  them  prominence  before  they  had  reached  that  age ; 
and,  second,  that  there  must  always  be  something  of  a lag  in  public 
recognition,  and  in  all  probability  many  who  had  already  performed 
service  of  importance  had  not  yet  been  promoted  to  the  ranks  of  ^ Who’s 
Who.’  Yet,  even  with  these  qualifications,  the  figures  are  not  without 
their  bearing  upon  the  question  of  the  minimum  age  at  which  important 
public  service  is  rendered,  for  without  doubt  achievement  of  the  first 
rank  is  not  slow  of  recognition.  And  the  thing  which  must  strike  one 
most  forcibly  in  any  inspection  of  the  table  is  the  comparatively  few 
men  under  forty  years  of  age.  Of  the  6,983  men,  the  median  age  is 
fifty-four  years,  while  but  1,118,  or  less  than  one  in  six,  were  below  the 
age  of  forty  years.  Stated  in  other  words,  this  means  that  in  the  year 
1900  out  of  a group  of  nearly  7,000  eminent  men  but  16  per  cent,  were 
within  Dr.  Osier’s  age  period  of  most  ^ effective,  moving,  vitalizing 
work.’  Although  this  fact  can  not  be  taken  as  disproving  his  conten- 

* The  persons  mentioned  in  the  volume  but  not  included  in  the  group 
studied  either  formed  a nondescript  class  so  far  as  vocation  is  concerned  or 
failed  to  give  the  date  of  birth,  or  were  women  and  were  tabulated  separately. 


541 


POPULAR  SCIENCE  MONTHLY.. 


lion,  since,  as  has  been  said,  a considerable  number  of  the  older  men 
may  have  completed  their  important  work  at  an  early  age,  still  it  would 
seem  to  throw  some  serious  doubts  upon  the  truth  of  his  generalization. 
At  least  the  figures  show  that  in  a group  of  arbitrarily  limited  extent, 
i.  e.,  the  size  of  ^ Who’s  Who,’  the  young  man  in  competition  for  a 
'place  is  but  a one  to  five  shot.’  But  it  is  possible,  through  recourse 
to  mathematics,  to  indicate  approximately  the  age  at  which  the  service 
was  rendered  which  secured  admission  to  the  book.  To  illustrate — of 
the  entire  number  of  6,983  comprising  our  group,  86  were  between  the 
ages  of  twenty  and  twenty-nine  years,  the  entire  number  having  become 
famous  during  that  decade  of  life.  The  probable  mortality  of  that 
number  of  persons  for  the  decade,  supposing  them  to  be  good  ^ risks,’ 
would  be  six.  We  may  then  suppose  that  80  would  enter  the  next 
decade.  But  our  figures  show  that  922  of  our  entire  group  were 
between  the  ages  of  30-39,  inclusive,  leaving  the  number  842  as  rep- 
resenting the  number  of  new  names  admitted  during  the  decade.  Of 
the  total  number  for  this  age  period  (922),  the  mortality  tables  lead 
us  to  suppose  that  78  will  die  before  its  completion,  giving  us  844  as 
the  number  passing  on  to  the  next  group — that  for  the  age  decade  of 
40-49  3^ears.  Again  we  get  the  probable  number  added  during  the 
decade  by  subtracting  the  number  thus  admitted  from  the  previous 
group,  from  1,620,  the  total  number  of  persons  of  the  age  covered  by 
the  decade  and  find  the  total  number  added  for  services  rendered  during 
the  decade  to  be  776.  In  the  same  way,  by  using  the  continually 
increasing  mortality  rate  and  applying  it  to  the  number  left  over  from 
previous  decade-groups,  we  find  the  number  added  between  the  years 
50-59  to  be  376;  from  60-69  years,  51.  Beyond  this  point  the  com- 
putation gives  us  minus  quantities  for  the  number  of  persons  admitted 
during  each  of  the  next  three  decades,  indicating  seemingly  either  or 
both  of  two  conditions;  first,  that  the  mortality  among  these  men  of 
eminence  is  greater  than  that  of  the  insurable  risks  upon  which  the 
mortality  tables  are  based ; second,  that  in  the  compilation  of  ^ Who’s 
Who,’  the  old  men  did  not  receive  the  recognition  given  to  their 
younger  confreres,  thus  reducing  the  size  of  these  more  advanced  age- 
groups.  Either  one  of  these  conditions  would  tend  to  bring  about  the 
statistical  result  alluded  to,  and  on  consideration  we  have  reason  to 
believe  that  both  of  them  are  active. 

If  the  above  reasoning  is  not  fallacious,  and  if  there  is  no  great  lag 
in  the  public  recognition  of  achievement,  we  have  a further  refutation 
of  Dr.  Osier’s  contention  that  the  ^ work  of  the  world  is  done  between 
the  ages  of  twenty-five  and  forty,’  for  we  find  the  ratio  of  recognition 
for  the  several  decades  to  be  as  follows: 

20-29  30-39  40-49  50-59  60-69 

3.9  per  cent.  39.5  per.  cent.  36.4  per  cent.  17.6  per  cent.  2.4  per  cent. 


AGE  AND  EMINENCE. 


542 


From  this  we  see,  that  although  the  decade  from  30-39  shows  the 
greatest  productivity,  it  is  but  slightly  greater  than  the  next  succeeding 
one,  and  that  less  than  one  half  have  made  good — at  least  so  far  as 
public  recognition  is  concerned — before  the  age  of  forty  years. 

Although  these  generalizations  are  for  the  whole  group  studied, 
irrespective  of  vocation,  the  first  table  shows  considerable  differences 
in  the  average  age  of  those  in  the  various  professions  and  also  in  the 
percentages  of  those  under  forty  years  of  age.  This  question  was  dis- 
cussed by  the  author  in  the  Popular  Science  Monthly  for  July, 
1902,  but  I take  the  liberty  of  touching  upon  it  briefly  again. 

It  is  noticeable  that  the  musician  distances  all  competitors  in  the 
race  for  distinction.  This  is  not  hard  to  understand  when  we  recall 
the  infant  prodigies  who  frequently  figure  on  our  bill  boards,  or  con- 
sider that  nature  has  in  most  cases  contributed  more  largely  to  his 
success  than  has  nurture.  Of  those  callings  which  presuppose  a pro- 
fessional or  at  least  an  extended  preparation,  that  of  scientist 
seems  from  our  table  to  promise  the  earliest  recognition.  This 
is  perhaps  due  to  the  fact  that  with  him  the  actual  work  of  life  is 
entered  with  a completer  intellectual  equipment  than  by  most  of  the 
others,  and  that  the  period  of  preparation  offers  opportunities  for 
research  and  original  investigation  which  may  bring  renown  even  before 
life  work  is  begun.  This  would  also  apply  to  the  college  professor  with 
perhaps  fully  as  much  force  and  in  a lesser  degree  to  the  librarian  and 
the  educator.  These  four  then  might  be  included  in  a class  in  which 
the  period  of  preparation  is  extended,  but  for  which  work  of  a high 
order  might  be  expected  immediately  on  its  completion  and  positions 
of  some  prominence  aspired  to  from  the  start.  Next  in  the  race  for 
renown  come  the  actor  and  the  author,  almost  neck  and  neck.  If  we 
conclude  that  nature  had  most  to  do  with  the  musician’s  success  and 
nurture  with  the  educator’s,  we  should  be  forced  to  place  the  author 
and  the  actor  in  a class  in  which  these  two  forces  divide  the  honors 
more  evenly.  No  doubt  one  must  be  born  an  actor  or  an  author  to 
rise  to  a high  rank,  but  after  all,  the  making  process  is  not  to  be  despised 
as  a factor,  and  this  takes  time.  Except  for  the  soldier  and  sailor, 
v/hose  ability  to  rise  to  prominence,  at  least  in  time  of  peace,  is 
determined  by  the  rapidity  with  which  those  above  him  are  retired 
from  service,  and  the  congressman  and  the  statesman,  whose  minimum 
limit  is  prescribed  by  law,  the  rest  of  the  vocations  shown  upon  the 
chart  fall,  it  seems  to  me,  into  a class  for  which  the  schools,  as  organized 
means  of  education,  provide  no  adequate  preparation,  and  for  which 
that  preparation  must  come  to  a great  extent  from  the  vocation  itself. 
Thus  the  scientist,  or  even  the  college  professor,  who  has  devoted 
thirty  years  of  life  to  study,  can  enter  his  profession  from  the  top. 


543 


POPULAR  SCIENCE  MONTHLY, 


while  the  business  man  and  financier  for  whom  the  accumulation  of 
wealth  is  a desideratum,  or  the  lawyer  and  the  doctor  who  must  com- 
mand a practise,  or  the  minister  who  needs  a congregation,  must  with 
the  same  period  of  intellectual  infancy  enter  it  from  the  bottom  and 
devote  a few  more  years  to  the  climbing  process.  In  so  far  as  the 
physician  is  an  investigator,  the  conditions  of  the  scientist  apply  to 
him,  and  no  doubt  the  considerable  number  who  are  such  accounts  for 
the  fact  that  his  recognition  comes  earlier  than  that  of  his  competitors 
in  law  and  the  pulpit.  The  surprising  thing  of  the  figures  is  perhaps 
the  slowness  with  which  the  inventor  gains  a foothold  in  the  ladder 
of  fame.  Not  one  of  those  mentioned  was  below  the  age  of  forty  years, 
though  the  group  is  too  small  to  give  this  fact  much  weight. 

Although  women  are  not  included  in  the  table  given,  the  study  of 
those  mentioned  in  ^ Who’s  Who  ’ shows  that  upon  the  stage  and  in 
musical  circles  recognition  is  much  earlier  for  them  than  for  men, 
while  in  all  other  callings  it  is  slower.  This  would  seem  to  suggest 
that  attractiveness  of  person  is  at  a greater  premium  with  her  than  with 
her  brother,  and  perhaps  makes  up  for  some  other  defects.  When  how- 
ever this  is  outlived  with  youth,  the  struggle  seems  to  be  a hard,  if  not 
a losing  one. 


